Vol. 161 No. 2
Deputy McQuillan has given notice that he wishes to raise on the Adjournment the subject-matter of Question No. 14.
"To ask the Minister for Justice if the Government have reached a decision in connection with the release of members of Dáil Éireann who are imprisoned and of other persons imprisoned under the Offences against the State Acts, and, if so, if he will state the nature of the decision."
I put this very simple question to the Minister to-day in connection with a number of young men who are imprisoned at the present time. The question was whether the Minister was prepared to release them and the Minister's answer was in the negative. I felt personally that, in view of the fact that this Government was just taking office, it would be a grand thing if all could start off with a clean sheet, that it would be a grand gesture on the part of the new Government to release these young men and that, by taking this action, they would be able to create and build up an immense fund of goodwill amongst our people generally.
I put this point to the Minister to-day and I regret very much that he did not agree with it. Apparently, the Minister took the view, according to his own remarks, that I should have directed my remarks to those young men who are in prison. He said that "we"—meaning the Government—"are quite prepared to submit the ways and means to these young men." I am at a loss to understand what the Minister meant to convey by that statement, but I feel sure that he will enlighten me in the course of his reply this evening. If it means what can be taken out of it on its face, the ordinary interpretation, then I am not prepared to accept that. It would mean that these young men would be asked, I presume, to sign certain documents, give certain guarantees and make certain admissions, before they would be released. I think that is a line which has been adopted by the British Government with Archbishop Makarios. These young men, in the opinion of many members of this House, are misguided; yet they have pride and they have idealism, and it is a wrong way to go about changing their views by suggesting to them that they must crawl now before the powers that have office.
We know that these young men have been imprisoned under various sections of the Offences Against the State Act, but it is not my intention, in the short time available to me, to deal with some of the sections under which these young men have been imprisoned. It should suffice to say that at least one of the sections under which action has been taken is a section for which no comparable section can be found in any legislation in any free country.
The Deputy may not criticise legislation.
I merely mention it, Sir, to point out that it is under certain sections of that legislation that we have seen fit to imprison these young men. However, it is not the legislation I propose to deal with on this Adjournment debate.
I would like the Minister to tell me bluntly whether he believes that these young men are criminals. I would like any Deputy to tell me straight out here whether it is his belief that these young men who are imprisoned, these Republican prisoners, are criminals. I do not believe that it is suggested by any Deputy. I think that the furthest any Deputy or indeed anybody outside the House is prepared to go in describing them is to say they are misguided young men. I am not talking about other people who may be shadows in the background; I am talking simply and solely about those young individuals themselves. I say they are young idealists who are prepared to sacrifice their lives and that under no circumstances should they be put in the category of criminals.
If all Deputies accept that viewpoint, it is not unfair to suggest at this stage that goodwill be shown towards them and that the olive branch be held out to them. Surely it is a nicer way to deal with the problem and a more practical way to do so rather than to wield the big stick over their heads and threaten them? Is it not a well-known fact, wherever you have spirited youth, if you wish to get the best from them, you get it by persuasion and encouragement and that you never get it by using the big stick or threats? That is precisely what is being done to-day with the youth of the country—the big stick is being used.
I do not want to make this an issue. I want to see this problem solved with goodwill all round. I have given great consideration to this matter for a long time and I am speaking now as perhaps one of the younger members of this House who is more in touch with the young people of the country than many of the older men here. I say that in no spirit of criticism of the older men because I believe the young people will gravitate towards each other more than towards the older generation and it is because I believe that I know the minds of the majority of these young men that I make this plea. I do not make it for the purpose of causing any worry or any disturbance in the mind of anybody inside or outside the House. I hope that will be accepted.
I have said the furthest any Deputy is prepared to go—and I have listened to some of them talking about the recent activities that took place across the Border—is that these young men are misguided and they are brave. The previous Government took the view as far as I can judge it, that, right up to last Christmas, they were prepared to take no action in connection with these activities or in connection with the young men, many of whom are now in jail. We all know that certain actions did take place across the Border and that nothing was done immediately after these forays—if you like to describe them as such—until the British Ambassador paid his State call here in Dublin to our Government.
Of course, that is untrue.
The Deputy seems to be getting outside the ambit of the motion, which calls for the release from custody of the members of Dáil Éireann who are in prison.
I am coming to that.
The question of the activities of members outside the jails does not arise.
It was then that the decision was taken to put the rigours of the law into force against these young men. That must be taken into consideration—that the decision was not taken until the British Ambassador made his call.
That is untrue.
That is not true.
From that date we have not heard what was the message or decision of the Government. We were never told what the British Ambassador was told, although our Government was asked to tell us what had been said.
The matter does not arise now.
All we do know is that immediately the full machinery of the law went into operation and as a result we have these young men in prison to-day. It is on behalf of these young men that I make a plea to the Minister in this new Government to release them. I am convinced, and I could not be more sure of anything in my life than this, that these young men were nurtured on the heroic tales of the men who died in 1916. These young men have studied Irish history as they know it. They have been through the school books, and through the daily and weekly newspapers they have been given a version of Irish history that would indicate that nothing was ever achieved in this country and that no measure of freedom was ever wrung from Britain except at the point of the gun.
The type of history lesson that all those young men were taught was that it was necessary to fight Britain with her own weapons, that blood must be spilled if anything was ever to be taken from Britain. Their belief—and that is where their teaching and where the example of the past comes to light—is the very same belief as was held by members of the Front Bench of Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael 35 or 40 years ago.
There was no Irish Government here then.
I am only putting to the House——
Is it not necessary to point out the distinction when you are making that kind of speech?
Would you allow me please?
Certainly.
I am trying to point out what is in the minds of these young men, and let me say if Deputy O'Higgins has any doubt at all in regard to the policy pursued by their leaders in failing to recognise this House, I have no time for that argument.
All I want to do is to emphasise the difference between the period the Deputy is talking about and the present period.
These young men take the line they take in the sincere belief that they are following in the footsteps of the men who did great things for this country 35 or 40 years ago. Is it fair to-day that we should brand them by imprisoning them as we are doing at the moment? I believe that when you have idealists—perhaps some of them are fanatics at times— in a State, the most reasonable way to deal with them is not to persecute them but to try, so far as possible, to give other outlets for the energies that are pent up inside them.
I think the younger members of this House will agree with me when I say that in the past 15 or 20 years we have seen no practical steps taken to solve Partition. Perhaps the older Deputies will not agree with that, but so far as younger Deputies and youth outside the House are concerned, their firm belief is that no real effort has been made to end Partition. When that is the case, is it any wonder that we have a sense of frustration and despair amongst the rising generation to-day? Is it any wonder that, in the cream of the youth that is left after emigration takes its toll, that spirit of despair should find itself channelled into other lines where the energies of the young men concerned will be directed towards achieving—perhaps by means that this House does not agree with although at least they are sincere in their aim —the re-unification of our country?
The stature of this Government would increase if it took the simple step of releasing these prisoners. The present Taoiseach is quoted, in the course of an interview, as saying that he was in favour of letting the law take its course. I do not know whether or not he has given great consideration to that matter but I would remind him, as I would remind the present Minister for Defence, that in 1917 a Sinn Féin M. P. was elected for South Longford. As a result of his election, that Sinn Féin M. P.—Joe McGuinness—who was in prison at the time was released forthwith by the British Government. It must be understood that, at that time, there was no such thing as political prisoners. At present, the young men imprisoned here for alleged offences against the State are segregrated from the ordinary prisoners in the different jails but in 1917 there was no difference at all: all prisoners were considered criminals.
At that time, Joe McGuinness was released immediately by the British Government when he was elected because the people had spoken. Surely if, in 1917, when political freedom in that sense was not considered at all, a person was released on his election we can agree now, in 1957, under our own Government that if the people of the different constituencies say by their votes they want a certain man to represent them then, on that basis, we should release the individuals concerned if they happen to be in prison.
May I put it this way? The T.D., who is at present in prison, got a tremendous vote in his constituency. For all practical purposes, the Minister might as well say he would go down to Longford-Westmeath and arrest everybody who cast a vote for Rory Brady. Everybody who cast a vote for Rory Brady did so because they were democratically entitled to do so. The will of the majority in that constituency spoke in his favour and, as such, he was elected. If he is wrong then a great many other people in that constituency are wrong as well.
My approach to this matter is as follows. First of all, I want to say that, personally, I do not agree with the outlook of men, whether young or old, who fail to recognise this House and its jurisdiction. Accepting that, I want to make it quite clear to the Minister that I believe that the young men concerned—I know many of them —are motivated by the highest of ideals. I must admit that I can do nothing personally but admire their courage and idealism although I do not agree with the way in which they are going about things. I have to admire them. If the matter were in my hands I would deal with the whole problem in a different way. I cannot go into all that now in the course of this short debate. Under the circumstances, I appeal to the Minister to look on these men as young idealists and, on that basis, to release them as a gesture of goodwill so that the new Dáil can start off with a clean sheet and perhaps good things will come as a result of what has happened.
I think the Deputy will find in due course that trying to sit on two stools is a dangerous pastime. He must surely realise that what he is advocating here this evening is what he calls the rights of the people concerned in his question as against the rights of this Parliament which governs the affair of the State. He was anxious to know what I meant when I referred to the ways and means which were there for these young men to secure their own release. There is a form which they are asked to sign if they desire to be released. There would be nothing dishonourable in their signing that form if they were not members of an illegal organisation. I am wondering if the Deputy considers that that illegal organisation has a right to operate in this State where we have a Constitution which these people refuse to recognise, a Parliament which they refuse to recognise and an Army which they refuse to recognise.
There can be only one Army in the State and that shall be the Army which has been established by this Parliament.
There are two armies at the moment, you know. What about the one in the North?
The Deputy suggested that these men would have to crawl. We are not asking them to crawl. The Deputy himself said that he would spurn the form in question. That, I think, shows his attitude generally to this situation. I feel that the Deputy has done a disservice to the State by the speech which he has just made. He practically advocated the right of certain individuals to refuse to recognise the laws of this country. That cannot, in any circumstances, be subscribed to by any member of this House. Every member of the House is equal before the law and amongst the many privileges which Deputies enjoy, that is one privilege to which they are not entitled—the privilege of being above the law. That is what the Deputy is suggesting when he more or less says that the member who is in prison and who was elected in the last General Election should be released forthwith.
I do not want to enter into controversy with the Deputy on the question of the prisoner who was released in Longford very many years ago, but I think he will find, on examination, that his statement is wrong and that the prisoner was not released when he was elected. He was released at a later date in what might be described as a general release of those men who had been sentenced to penal servitude.
The Deputy's statement that no action was taken until the British Ambassador came over here is, I believe, a garbled version of his own of the mission of the gentleman concerned——
It is grossly untrue.
I do not think he would attempt to dictate, nor do I believe that, if he attempted to dictate, his dictation would be accepted.
Hear, hear!
Would the Minister ever publish what he said?
I should be glad if the Deputy would use his influence to convince the people on whose behalf he is speaking of the futility of the actions they are taking at the present time. We are endeavouring to preserve the peace that exists in this nation. We are not attempting to wage war on any person; we are not attempting to deprive anyone, who is not in conflict with the law, of his rights and liberties; but when any individual comes into conflict with the law, then he must be dealt with and that is what has been happening.
The Deputy is challenging members of the House—it seems to me almost like felon setting—to call these young men criminals. No member of the House wants to call any young idealist a criminal, but we can at least say that they are foolish and are in conflict with the law. Because they are in conflict with the law, they must be dealt with. Does the Deputy want this Government or any other Government to sit down and do nothing? Does he want us to allow these people to have the freedom to do the things they want to do? Does he want them to have the right to use this State as a spring board for attacks on another portion of the country? I do not think he does, but that is what he would appear to be advocating. We must get points of that kind made clear. It gives me no pleasure and I am sure it gives no members of the Government any pleasure—no more than it would have given pleasure to any member of the former Government to have to deal with matters of this kind, but when we are confronted with them, they must be met and they must be dealt with.
Deputy McQuillan would be very well advised to use whatever influence he possesses to get these young men to desist from the attitude they have been adopting. As far as this Government is concerned, it will be our task to see that peace is preserved and I will endeavour to share in the responsibility of ensuring that that is done.
The Dáil adjourned at 6 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 24th April, 1957.
